Several Alaska state representatives wen to the Alaska Supreme Court seeking to shut down the state legislature's investigation of the so-called Palin "troopergate" scandal. This means the legislature's investigative report will be released tomorrow. The Anchorage Daily News reports:
The state Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute and Anchorage attorney Kevin Clarkson, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Alaska Republican state legislators opposed to their colleagues' investigation.The court issued a short order, and an opinion is forthcomingThe state legislators whose names appeared on the appeal attempting to stop the investigation are Wes Keller, Mike Kelly, Fred Dyson, Tom Wagoner, Carl Gatto and Bob Lynn.
Their lawyers argued that allowing the investigation to proceed would threaten the right under the Alaska Constitution to a "fair and just" investigation by the Legislature. They allege bias among the legislators who are leading the investigation, and that the Legislative Council lacks the authority to order the probe.
While I never thought the "troopergate" story made for much of a scandal, the aggressiveness with which some are trying to shut down an investigation would suggest otherwise. I suppose we'll see soon enough.
Will we? How is that possible when one of the prime actors, Governor Palin, refused to participate, barred her staff from participating and hid potentially relevant communications in a private e-mail account? We may learn something but it won't be the whole story, thanks to the Governor's actions.
Um, didn't her staff eventually participate, and didn't the kid who hacked her private email say "well, shucks, I didn't find anything but family pictures"?
The Streisand Effect should be taught at all law and policy schools.
Try to hide something and it's guaranteed that your hiding it will be more visible than the thing you're trying to hide.
As opposed to the aggressiveness of the investigators, which would then suggest innocence? Since when is a vigorous defense evidence of guilt?
"- sounds like proof that Palin did not beat the good ole boys network after all."
I'd say it was always just a window of opportunity. Time will tell if she's made enough of that window to survive.
Palins Repeatedly Pressed Case Against Trooper
Palin staff and husband hound trooper with three dozen calls to his superiors.
But never mind.
Palin Pre-empts State Report, Clears Self in Probe
When it's performed through obstructionism.
I'm just an ethics major. Can someone kindly cite a law, to explain why Palin had no authority to act for her own safety?
But now those same partisan Democrats are using it to hurt her chances as VP. So she has to fight back.
When you look closely at the details it's very apparent that she's told a series of brazen lies. One aspect of this is explained here.
There are a bunch of other glaring contradictions. For example, she's claiming that she and her family didn't know about Wooten's punishment until 7/08, even though she has also suggested that Wooten's complete personnel file was in Todd's possession in 2/08.
She has also repeatedly accused Wooten of being violent and abusive, even though Molly told police that Wooten never abused her. Palin also repeatedly cites the DVPO (restraining order) as proof that Wooten is violent, even though it was a temporary order that was quickly lifted because the judge found no evidence of violence. Palin has issued a statement falsely claiming that the judge did find evidence of violence.
Todd's filing released today falsely claims that the DVPO extended into 2006, even though it was dissolved in 5/05, after being in effect for just a few weeks. The McCain campaign has issued a statement suggesting the DVPO is still in effect.
There are lots of other shenanigans, most of which have been completely unreported. That darn liberal media.
The wikipedia article on this is a good reference. It points to about 150 sources. Google troopergate.
Belatedly, only after the GOP's attempt to ignore subpoenas was struck down by a judge. And Todd's cooperation is marginal. Instead of being examined, he wrote a statement. And Palin herself has not cooperated, after making many promises that she would.
She has other email accounts, which she is shielding from investigators.
Except that they reported nothing until months or years later, when the divorce started. Palin's daughter Bristol admitted to police that they reported the Taser incident two years late "because of the divorce." The alleged death threat wasn't reported to the police until two months later.
So it's pretty clear that Wooten's behavior didn't bother them much until a custody battle was going on. It's also clear that the Palin family made many allegations that were ruled to be unfounded. It's also clear that they continued their campaign against him even after he had already been punished. That's called double jeopardy.
It's also clear that Palin is regularly making false statements about Wooten, and about her own actions.
Palin is all about replacing the old gang of cronies with her own new gang of cronies. Read up about who got the jobs she handed out.
By the way, the Branchflower investigation was authorized by a unanimous vote of the Legislative Council, which consists of 8 R and 4 D. Poor Palin. Both parties decided to investigate her. It must be because she's such a fearless reformer, and not because she actually did something wrong.
No one outside the family ever heard Wooten threaten anyone. Palin said she heard a threat, but she didn't report it to her father (the target) until a month later. It wasn't reported to the police until two months later (on the day her sister filed for divorce).
When you look closely at the claims about threats, they fall apart. That's why the suspension letter sent to Wooten by Col. Grimes didn't even mention the alleged death threat.
Since when is stonewalling and ignoring subpoenas (until a judge slaps you) fairly described as "a vigorous defense?" Especially since she made many statements promising to fully cooperate, and is still (amazingly) calling herself "an open book."
The Legislative Council that launched the investigation (and appointed French to run it) consists of 8 R and 4 D. The two committees that authorized the subpoenas are also R controlled.
The investigation is bipartisan, and claims to the contrary are baloney. The McCain campaign has issued multiple statements accusing French of manipulating the witness list. They accuse Branchflower and French of "colluding on the issuing of subpoenas." This is a reference to the fact that Tibbles was not subpoenaed. But it was Ramras (R) who asked that Tibbles not be subpoenaed.
Also, it makes no sense to imply that the decision to not subpoena Tibbles is an act that's harmful to Palin. The only reason Branchflower asked for a subpoena for Tibbles is because Tibbles has taken the position that he will not speak with Branchflower voluntarily. (This is explained in the minutes of the 9/12 meeting at which the subpoenas were issued.) This seems to indicate that Tibbles's testimony would be unfavorable to Palin. If Tibbles's testimony would be favorable to Palin, then Tibbles is free to offer it, and the absence of the subpoena has no consequence. In other words, the decision to not subpoena Tibbles has the appearance of an act intended to protect Palin, rather than the opposite.
So this claim about French manipulating the witness list is transparent nonsense.
"When it's performed through obstructionism."
Clearly, you're not a lawyer. Nor am I. I was under the impression, however, that Prof. Adler was. I still don't see why political jockeying should affect the presumption of innocence.
The cover-up is always worse than the crime. Especially when the people doing the covering are as incompetent as these people appear to be.
Here are a bunch of statements that Palin made, promising to fully cooperate:
Then McCain picked her, and she suddenly started stonewalling. Why? If she has nothing to hide, why is she suddenly doing so much hiding? If she was innocent, then there would be no need for all the "political jockeying." And therefore her evasiveness does indeed "affect the presumption of innocence."
You mean Monegan. Wooten has not been fired. But you're right, Palin keeps coming up with new reasons that she fired Monegan. It's kind of like the way we kept hearing new reasons for invading Iraq.
And Moneghan did tell the Anchorage paper that no one asked or even hinted that he should fire Wooten; Todd has apparently said that he'd been trying to get Wooten fired since before Sarah was even Governor.
One of the frustrating parts about keeping the Palin Rumors list is that it doesn't matter how often you gather up facts, there will be someone to repeat the rumor as fact.
(Psst. Why don't you try the one that said she thought "dinosaurs are Satan lizards"? I get asked about that one every couple days, even though it was started by a guy in a blog popst entitled "fake Palin rumors".)
The "report" has been promised to be released immediately before Election Day.
Since Palin has bucked the Alaskan Political Establishment, Democrat and Republican, one might reasonably expect the "report" would be a hit job by that establishmet, and want to delay it.
Slight correction. Tomorrow, Branchflower is going to hand his report to French. But then there is a vote regarding whether or not to release the report to the public. The whole report could be withheld, or certain portions could be withheld, on the grounds that a person's privacy is being violated.
I'm not clear about who will be in control tomorrow. It's either the Legislative Council, or it's some combination of the House/Senate Judiciary Committees. There will be some kind of non-public meeting to make decisions about this.
I predict that the report will be released to the public tomorrow, with minor redactions. But it's not a sure thing.
Yes, I heard Palin's husband saying that he's an average citizen and he was just following the same channels as any other resident. But guess what? When your the husband of the Governor of the state and your interacting with state employees, your not "an average citizen". Sorry, Todd Palin may not like that but that's the downside of being the spouse of someone running the state. As innocent as he may have thought his actions were, you can never escape that dynamic and even if Monegan didn't feel pressured, it was inappropriate for Todd Palin to be having that kind of interaction with Monegan, when the man works for his wife.
hereticvictim?That's not just something that Wooten "did claim." It's consistent with the statements given to police by the other people present: Payton, Bristol and Molly. Molly was upstairs, and she was so concerned (not) that she didn't go to the trouble of going downstairs to intervene, even though she knew what was going on.
According to the boy, right after it was done he went upstairs to tell his mom he was fine. Wooten used a low-power test procedure, which means it would feel like your funny bone was hit.
Two years later, the family decided it was time to report this to the police. Exactly at the moment that Molly was filing for divorce. Fascinating coincidence.
Wrong. He said no one ever said directly 'fire Wooten.' Monegan never said that no one "even hinted that he should fire Wooten." On the contrary. Monegan has stated repeatedly that he was repeatedly pressured to fire Wooten. Here's some relevant text:
Some other relevant text:
Your claim about "even hinted" is false.
It is no secret that the Palin family vendetta against Wooten began in connection with the divorce proceedings in 2005, before Palin was even running for governor. When she took office, they carried the vendetta into her office, literally.
One of the frustrating things about reading your Palin Rumors list is that it's packed with misinformation. For example, you say this:
That is a highly distorted version of what Monegan actually said.
You also say this:
Read the police interviews from 2005. There was never an allegation that Wooten threatened to murder Molly. That embellishment was tacked on years later.
You also say this:
Wrong. The DVPO lasted from 4/11/05 to 5/9/05. Wooten's 5-day suspension took place in 2006.
Palin had no first-hand knowledge of this threat. It was something Molly claimed. Molly admitted to police that it was not a threat of violence, but rather a threat to make life difficult for them.
Et cetera.
Not exactly. The investigation was launched by the Legislative Council, which consists of 8 R and 4 D. They authorized a 3-month contract for Branchflower, starting on 8/1. Therefore the investigation was expected to end on 10/31. Then this happened:
That's why Branchflower is finishing his report by today (10/10).
Those words are a bit unclear. Are you saying that the "establishmet" are the ones who "want to delay it?" If so, then you haven't been paying attention.
By the way, Palin didn't start describing the report as "a hit job" until McCain picked her. Odd coincidence.
There's some confusion on this point, in no small part because people like the McCain campaign and Byron York are promoting blatant falsehoods (see here and here). And let's not forget charlie.
As I have cited above, Monegan has said emphatically and repeatedly that he was repeatedly pressured. And Todd Palin's 10/9 filing corroborates this.
It's true that Todd made this claim, but the claim isn't exactly true. In a legal filing on 9/1/08, Palin admitted that "no one in the Palin family ever filed a formal complaint," subsequent to the complaints the family made in 2005.
The normal "channels" for an "average citizen" would have been to file a formal complaint. But after 2005, the Palins never did that. Instead, they had multiple staffers exert pressure via several dozen contacts. In other words, they went through the back door, instead of the front door, probably because they understood their complaint had no legitimacy. Therefore they didn't want it to be formal and documented.
Please.
McCain's incredibly lame and dishonest micro-site on this subject is here.
If they were organized, this site would host their new statement that is described here. But it doesn't.
You can get a look at "Safety Bear" here. Late-night comedy writers are sharpening their pencils.
I think your contract stipulates that you're also supposed to mention The Clenis™.
Mostly I've been citing legal filings issued by Palin, and police interviews from 2005. The quaint term for stuff like this is 'primary sources.' If you try really hard to make sure no facts invade your universe, you might have no idea what this means.
It's very hard to convince some people in important positions that unencrypted email and unsecure web forms put information at risk. I'm running into that with a state ombudsman's office and the executives of a personal care home corporation. (I should find a web resource to cite, since I sure can't explain IT security risks.) The misconceptions among elected officials and government employees are astounding, but ignorance shouldn't be accepted as an excuse.
I hope that subpoenas for email data from and pertaining to Governor Palin's sneaky email account(s) will be forthcoming.
My thoughts, too. As a liberal Democrat, I thought Troopergate seemed a little weak. It Palin had promised to cooperate, and the allegations looked explainable. But then Palin broke her repeated pledges to cooperate and launched a broadside on the investigator the Republican legislature picked to lead the investigation.
If Palin were actually vigorously defending herself, you'd have a point. But she's refusing to cooperate and she launched a full-frontal assault on the process she had agreed to.
Also, this isn't a criminal process--it's a truth-seeking process. The lead investigator can't assess any penalties, and his findings will only be as valuable as they are well-supported and persuasive. If
Palin thoughtMcCain's people thought that the report would exonerate Palin, they'd be touting it, not trying to suppress it.Of course, maybe this is just one giant exercise in expectation-management on the part of the McCain campaign. That would be weird and erratic, but McCain is weird and erratic. On the other hand, I don't think McCain and his people have showed the strategic vision to pull something like that off.
No it isn't. Considering who is undertaking it and their incentives, it is an anti-Palin propaganda producing process.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
a) Palin could fire him for whatever reason she wanted, up to and including not liking his haircut. But never mind that.
b) Wooten has not been fired.
So. If she fired Monegan because he wouldn't fire Wooten, presumably she'd put someone in his place who *would* fire Wooten. Right?
Why hasn't Wooten been fired? Maybe because it was never the issue? Gosh.
This is a Republican-initiated investigation that Palin agreed to cooperate with (before she knew she would be a vice presidential candidate, of course). To call it a "propaganda producing process" is, well, just propaganda.
Like Adler, I didn't think there would be much here. Like Adler, the McCain attack team makes me think I was wrong.
This isn't a criminal prosecution. The report is only as valuable as it is persuasive and well-supported. There's no reason for McCain to attack the ref (who was picked by the Republican-controlled legislature) in advance unless he thinks the report will show some impropriety by Palin.
Palin's Putin-like attitude toward this investigation speaks very poorly of her and of her would-be boss.
@ jukeboxgrad
"The wikipedia article on this is a good reference."
Found your mistake.
@ jukeboxgrad
"Because if she did so, it would be proof that it was the reason she fired Monegan."
Except of course Wooten is -still on the job-.
Why Republicans put up with these idiot "investigations" is frankly beyond me. They're all political hit jobs that Democrats -never- allow.
Some info on that subject is here.
The "who" is a bipartisan committee that is 2/3 Republican. And which voted unanimously to launch the investigation.
You also haven't bothered to explain why Palin repeatedly expressed her support for this investigation.
Try reading the article. She was pressuring Kopp to fire Wooten before Kopp was even hired.
Are you living in a parallel universe? I guess so. The bipartisan Legislative Committee did indeed unanimously rule that the matter was sufficiently "important to warrant inquiry."
The LC handed Branchflower a three-month contract, scheduled to end on 10/31. Why should that be delayed just because there is now a lot at stake for the GOP? Isn't it even more important for the public to have all the facts?
If you can actually find a mistake in the wiki article, I would greatly appreciate that. It contains no statements that are not verifiable. It provides about 150 citations.
If you have a better source, let us in on the secret and tell us what it is. Maybe the "report" issued by Palin?
Only because Monegan has integrity.
Uh, no. The text from the original motion is here:
According to the boy, right after it was done he went upstairs to tell his mom he was fine. Wooten used a low-power test procedure, which means it would feel like your funny bone was hit.
You sir are an ignorant buffoon. There is no such thing as a "low-power test procedure" on a Taser. It operates the same way, every time.
When one performs a test fire on a Taser, one removes the Taser Cartridge from the device and cycles the weapon to ensure that it is properly functioning. This is usually done prior to the start of a shift.
There is no power setting or way to modify the amount of current that runs through the Taser. When you pull the trigger, it's all or nothing.
In my training I have had the Taser used on me more than once. I can tell you that under no circumstances does it "feel like your funny bone was hit." It hurts. BAD. It ranks among the worse pain that a human can feel.
Where did you come up with your nonsense? What left-wing blog told you that there was a "low power test procedure" on a Taser?
It's true that the Memorandum of Findings "sustained" the charge about the death threat. But that finding was overruled by Col. Grimes, the superior officer who issued the suspension letter. Probably because there are so many indications that the death-threat allegation is bogus. Like the fact that Palin didn't bother telling her father about it for a month. Like the fact that no one told the police about it for two months. Like the fact that no one outside the family ever heard this threat, or any other threat. Like the fact that Palin's behavior after hearing the threat showed that she didn't take it seriously (she left for a meeting, instead of going inside Molly's house to protect her).
Grimes overruled the original Findings in another respect, also. The original report tossed out the beer incident. Grimes put it back in.
Your credibility is shot after your "low powered test procedure" comment. I hope and pray that lefties are dumb enough to use that line, as that makes it quite clear that this is nothing more than a political stunt to smear Gov. Palin.
Under no circumstances should that Taser have been used on a child. The fact that the trooper did so questions his judgment.
And this is coming from another LEO. Had I ever been caught using my Taser in that manner, I would have been fired on the spot.
It would not have been delayed until the 2008 election, it would not have been headed by someone seeking to place Obama in office, and results of that "investigation" would not be demanded before election day.
The most interesting allegation I've seen is that Palin leaned on the state's contractor for evaluating workers' comp claims to get Wooten's claim denied.
Allegedly, the contractor testified that she wasn't unduly influenced to deny the claim; then one of her employees ratted on her out of disgust; *then* the contractor gave new sworn testimony contradicting her earlier denial, and admitting that "she was asked to deny the claim - at the direct request of Sarah and Todd Palin."
True or false? Maybe we'll have a better idea after the report comes out.
Wrong. They make a training cartridge. Aside from that, even if you're using a live cartridge, the user controls the spark duration (see page 6 of the operating manual; pdf). Aside from that, in a training scenario the user can clip the probes to your clothes, instead of shooting them at you. This involves the use of alligator-clip training leads. So you are wrong to claim "it operates the same way, every time."
Strictly speaking, the voltage is constant, but the intensity of the shock that is conveyed is controlled by limiting the spark duration. You know that you can limit the duration, right? Maybe you should review the manual. I even told you what page to look at.
Thank goodness you're more knowledgeable than the folks who build it:
The duration matters. Like I said, try reading the manual.
A Popular Mechanics lab test showing a volunteer being Tased is here (video). The volunteer and his laughing assistants don't seem to think that anyone is experiencing "the worse pain that a human can feel."
That's true. That's the main reason he was suspended. The other findings against him were relatively immaterial.
By the way, tell us what you think of the "judgment" of the family that didn't report this to the police for two years. When asked why they finally reported it, Bristol said "because of the divorce."
Wooten describes the incident here.
That's beside the point. Wooten was disciplined in 2006, before Monegan was on the job, and before Palin was governor. It would have been double jeopardy for Monegan to reopen the matter. Speaking of things you need to read, try the 5th and 14th amendments.
Your timeline is quite a bit off.
Monegan was fired in July of 2008. The investigation began (and was scheduled to end before election day) before Palin was tapped as VP.
So actually, the allegations that she improperly used government office to retaliate against Wooten date from 2005, not 2006.
Her term as mayor ended in 2002.
She didn't actually take over as Governor until the beginning of 2007, I believe (elected in 2007).
AIUI, the investigation is her abuse of power in pressuring Monegan, and then firing him for not caving to the pressure.
You know--these are basic facts, here, not subject to dispute. You might want to do some reading on the subject.
Your command of the facts is pathetically deficient. The Taser incident happened in 2003. The moose incident happened in 2003. The beer incident happened in 2004. These events were reported to the police in 2005.
Every now and then you might consider visiting Planet Earth.
As soon as these events were reported, a thorough investigation was done. Fifteen witnesses were interviewed. This led to Wooten being suspended in 2006.
OK. So by "allegations" you mean the allegations against Palin, that she abused her power as governor. No, those allegations don't "date from 2006." Here's one way we know that: she didn't even take office until 12/06.
Then for about 18 months she and her staff pressured Monegan and others. Finally, in 7/08 she fired Monegan. This is what broke the story open and led to the Branchflower investigation.
Are you upset that the Branchflower investigation didn't happen earlier? I guess Palin could have made that happen by firing Monegan earlier.
OK, I get it. In your world, any investigation of a Republican is presumptively unfair unless the investigation is being done strictly by other Republicans. Thanks for clearing that up. Makes perfect sense.
As Judge Michalski said:
By the way, French was appointed by a unanimous vote of the Legislative Council. 8 R, 4 D.
I notice you're not bothering to explain why Palin emphatically supported the Branchflower investigation, until McCain got her on the phone.
On 8/1, Branchflower was hired for a 3-month contract. Please explain why that should be changed simply because Palin has an interest in hiding facts from voters.
She took office on 12/4/06. No one has alleged that she started pressuring Monegan re Wooten prior to 1/07. What on earth are you talking about?
She stopped being mayor in 2002. You really need to get a grip.
By the way, as mayor she wrote a glowing character reference for Wooten.
At the time that she started making a bunch of (mostly false) allegations against Wooten in 2005, she was not a governor and she was not a mayor. She held no "government office" at that time.
I really don't understand why it's not a big deal that Palin, for personal reasons, tried to influence Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten.
It's interesting to note that tampering with a worker's comp claim can be a criminal offense. In Alaska, at least.
I am incorrect about the dates that she occupied the mayor's office: When she made the 2005 complaints, she was not mayor.
However, she allegedly resumed asserting pressure to secure action against Wooten in December 2006 when she assumed the governor's office. That pressure allegedly continued during multiple meetings in early 2007.
My one post was incorrect: She was clearly not mayor when she complained in 2005 about Wooten's conduct. My other post, however, was not incorrect: The first allegations against her (as governor) date from December 2006. Allegations that she improperly abused that office to retaliate against her sister's ex-husband date from December 2006.
"That's true. That's the main reason he was suspended. The other findings against him were relatively immaterial."
where you were referring to the use of a Taser.
Unfortunately, what you wrote is inaccurate and incorrect. Here are some excerpts from the 03/01/06 suspension letter to Trooper Wooten:
"The use of your department issued Taser on a ten-year old child, your stepson, Payton demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a conscience choice you made to violate the department's standards of conduct."
and:
"The issue of the wildlife violation has even deeper ramifications."
and:
"The issue of drinking alcoholic beverages (beer) prior to operating, and then during the operation of a marked patrol vehicle...further demonstrates your lack of judgment and a profound disrespect for the responsibilities of a law enforcement officer."
Ultimately, Wooten was notified in the letter:
"Based on the totality of this review and your past history (emphasis added), you will be suspended for ten-working days."
So clearly, the charge concerning the use of the Taser was not the "main reason" Wooten was suspended, nor were the "other findings against him relatively immaterial."
This is splitting hairs a bit, but facts are facts.
One more time. She took office on 12/4/06. No one has alleged that she did anything improper re Wooten in 12/06. Todd's famous meeting with Monegan happened in 1/07.
But he's so hunky!
Thomas, I've been tased, upon request, by an LEO friend of mine on a low setting. Despite what the loony left claims every time a PCP addict overdoses and is tased and keels over, tasers are perfectly safe for healthy people.
Unless you are claiming that tasers are in fact a deadly weapon, in which case you are inviting a world of hurt because you can no longer use them freely but have to comply with Tenn. v. Gardener.
Here are some facts about the moose incident:
Sounds pretty immaterial to me. The holder of the permit was right there. No one thought this needed to be reported to the police until 2005, when a divorce was underway. And apparently the family (including, most likely, Sarah and her father) ate the moose.
Here are some facts about the beer incident:
Sounds pretty immaterial to me. Lots of people falsely claim he was on duty.
You're obviously entitled to your own opinion about these incidents, and also your own opinion about the vague language in the Grimes letter. But I think it's pretty obvious that the Taser incident is more important than these other two matters.
Uh no. The Taser still operates the same way, every time. Whether you are ultizing it in Drive-Stun Mode, or using Alligator-Clips for training purposes, the Taser functions with the same voltage, the same current, the same output. It functions THE SAME WAY, EVERYTIME. While one can stop the cycle mid-stream by reactivating the safety, the fact remains that there is no such thing as a "low-powered training procedure."
[i]Thank goodness you're more knowledgeable than the folks who build it, Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser International [said] if the Taser is fired for just a second, it would feel like your funny bone was hit.[/i]
Tuttle is protecting his product from media attacks. I can tell you, as one who has experienced various duration Taser bursts, in both modes, IT DOES NOT ever feel like your funny bone was hit.
[i]A Popular Mechanics lab test showing a volunteer being Tased is here (video). The volunteer and his laughing assistants don't seem to think that anyone is experiencing "the worse pain that a human can feel."[/i]
1. They are not using an X-26.
2. Look at the pain he is in when he is actually being stunned.
3. You just pwned yourself with your own video.
[quote]That's true. That's the main reason he was suspended. The other findings against him were relatively immaterial.
By the way, tell us what you think of the "judgment" of the family that didn't report this to the police for two years. When asked why they finally reported it, Bristol said "because of the divorce."[/quote]
You are trying your best to justify an out of control Trooper because of your worship of "the messiah" "lord barry" and your hatred for Gov. Palin.
Did you stop to realize that you just contradicted yourself. Let's see if you are smart enough to figure out how.
[quote]That's beside the point. Wooten was disciplined in 2006, before Monegan was on the job, and before Palin was governor. It would have been double jeopardy for Monegan to reopen the matter. Speaking of things you need to read, try the 5th and 14th amendments.[/quote]
It's quite apparent at this point that you are not a lawyer. Perhaps one of the lawyers on here will explain to you the actual application of the 5th and 14th Amendments to this issue.
Unless you are claiming that tasers are in fact a deadly weapon, in which case you are inviting a world of hurt because you can no longer use them freely but have to comply with Tenn. v. Gardener.
They are less-lethal weapons. They are not toys. While it is true that it is very unlikely that they would cause permanent injury, they still are a less-than-lethal weapon, and they should NEVER be used in the manner in which Wooten utilized it.
And no, you were not Tased by an LEO friend on a low setting, because there is no power setting on a Taser.
You people really need to quit making stuff up.
"You're obviously entitled to your own opinion about these incidents, and also your own opinion about the vague language in the Grimes letter. But I think it's pretty obvious that the Taser incident is more important than these other two matters."
Agreed on one's own opinion. Given your statement of:
"But I think it's pretty obvious that the Taser incident is more important than these other two matters."
and Director Grimes writing:
"Based on the totality of this review and your past history (emphasis added), you will be suspended for ten-working days."
I'll place more emphasis in the words written by Director Grimes on why she decided on the discipline she did.
To date there are 250+ deaths
Must mean something's fishy.
Now, to shortcut the Deliberately Obtuse, I don't know that something's fishy. I'm using the vigor-of-defense rule, taught in all the best law schools. Don't blame me.
That should be Taser
But hey, keep trying to keep this story going. The vast majority of citizens who hear all the details - not just the ones that you promote - are going to think that Wooten was someone not fit to wear a police uniform and carry a gun. They are simply not going to get exercised about any alleged attempts to get rid of him. And that's all that they are - allegations.
The amount of energy that's transferred from the device to the subject is a direct function of how long the device is turned on. If the spark duration is short, then the total amount of energy that's delivered is low. Therefore the phrase I used ("low-power test procedure") is a perfectly reasonable way to summarize what he was doing, for a non-technical audience.
Thanks for giving us your opinion, that Tuttle has a motivation to not tell us the truth. Thank goodness there's no reason for anyone to apply the same reasoning to you.
Try responding to that I've actually said, instead of your fantasy of what you think I mean. I never said Tasing the kid was proper. What I'm saying is that the circumstances should be described properly.
Since you know so much about the law, it should be easy for you to explain why it was proper for Palin to expect Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten. What are you waiting for?
The issue of whether or not it was proper for Palin to fire Monegan is separate from the issue of whether or not it was proper for Palin to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten. Proving that the former is proper is not the same thing as proving that the latter is proper.
There are other potential issues, too, like improper handling of personal information, tampering with a workers comp claim, and lying to lawmakers and the public.
There's nothing in that statement to contradict the perspective I described, that the most important incident is the Taser incident. And since you want to focus so much on what Grimes actually said, please pay attention to the fact that she put that incident at the top of her list.
OK, I guess you want to keep splitting this hair.
Yes, in 12/06 Palin's office called Monegan's office to arrange a meeting. The meeting took place on 1/4/07. As far as I can tell, Monegan didn't know the subject of the meeting until that day.
Tell us again why you're making a fuss about this?
I assume that's under field operating conditions, which means there is a normal spark duration, and the probes are fired instead of clipped. The procedure Wooten used was different.
If you can present an example of something I've said that's incorrect, that would be helpful. I'll be waiting patiently.
If you can show an example of an important detail that I've been obscuring or overlooking, that would be helpful. I'll be waiting patiently.
Please ignore the various forms of hard evidence, like emails Palin wrote.
That's false. The DVPO was created on 4/11/05, and dissolved on 5/9/05, because "during the DVPO hearing, the judge found there was no basis for issuance of a long-term DVPO." Molly was unable to produce evidence of violence.
Must mean something's fishy.
The only thing that looked fishy to me (going by the images floating around the web) is that a piece of paper, almost 50 years old, doesn't looked the least bit creased, wrinkled, faded, or even rough around the edges.
Mine looks like it accidentally found its way into the laundry. Which it didn't. It's been in a box, most of the time in a glassine envelope. Maybe his Mom kept it in a nitrogen filled chamber on the off-chance he'd need it to run for President.
Here you go. A few posts back, you said:
If you were not such a partisan clown, you would know that double jeopardy is a defense that applies only to persons charged with a crime in a criminal trial. Wooten had only an administrative hearing inside his police department - not even a civil trial - and the double jeopardy defense does not apply to these proceedings. Why, a ten second search on Google finds the accurate Wikipedia page on what double jeopardy is about. But in your blind hatred of Palin, you can't get even the most elementary legal information correct. And you expect us to take seriously your vomitings and bile because of sheer volume.
Jeez, I will be glad when this election is over just because I hope you will then stop puking all over this blog.
See Monegan's testimony in the Branchflower report. Todd Palin wanted Monegan to bring criminal charges against Wooten for shooting the moose.
Is this really the best you can do? Claim that I've allegedly misunderstood what double jeopardy means? In all the statements I've made about Troopergate, you can't find another instance of something you can contest? Thanks for the reverse endorsement.
Anyway, you seem to be claiming it would have been proper to reopen the investigation regarding Wooten's behavior, even though that investigation had already concluded, and even though it had already resulted in disciplinary action against Wooten. Really? What was the basis to reopen that investigation?
Palin's lawyers understand quite well that there was no basis to reopen the investigation, and that it was wrong to try to get Wooten punished again for acts that had already been punished. That's why they've been advising Sarah and Todd to falsely claim that they never knew that Wooten had already been disciplined. Trouble is, Branchflower cites testimony from at least two witnesses who point out that the Palins are lying about this.
Other facts also demonstrate the lie. Palin has admitted being in possession of Wooten's personnel file.
Branchflower found that Palin had the right to fire Monegan, but that she did not have the right to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten. These are two separate issues.
I hope you'll explain why the bipartisan Legislative Council, composed of 8 R and 4 D, voted unanimously to hire an "Obama guy."
Palin's pressure on Monegan took place over the period from 1/07 to at least 5/08. So I hope you'll explain what you mean by "almost two years ago." And I hope you'll explain what you mean by "no one thought." All this came to light because Palin fired Monegan. She did that in July.
Maybe she should have held off on that until after the election.
Poor Sarah. The Rs are out to get her and the Ds are out to get her. And there were even two courts that just recently ruled against her. I guess this proves that she didn't do anything wrong, and she's really just a fearless reformer.
Is this really the best you can do? Claim that I've allegedly misunderstood what double jeopardy means? In all the statements I've made about Troopergate, you can't find another instance of something you can contest? Thanks for the reverse endorsement.
Well, you have misunderstood double jeopardy. This is a legal blog. Your posts to VC used to be tight and concise. I’m disappointed.
You made the following statement:
"That's beside the point. Wooten was disciplined in 2006, before Monegan was on the job, and before Palin was governor. It would have been double jeopardy for Monegan to reopen the matter."
and this:
"I really don't understand why it's not a big deal that Palin, for personal reasons, tried to influence Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten"
and this:
"Since you know so much about the law, it should be easy for you to explain why it was proper for Palin to expect Monegan to impose double jeopardy on Wooten. What are you waiting for?"
It was you who in effect challenged a VC'r to discuss double jeopardy in regards to Palin, Monegan and Wooten. Then, when the VC'r does so, you try to diminish how someone with facts has pointed out that you're using the term double jeopardy incorrectly.
If you're going to hold people to a high standard in posting accurate comments (which is a reasonable conclusion based on your VC posts), don't be surprised when others hold you to the same standard. Again jukeboxgrad, it goes to the issue of intellectual rigor.
Alaska is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party. The way West Virginia used to be for the Democrats.
It has a corrupt old boys network, go figure.
Palin shredded that network in the process of taking the governor's office, turning out corrupt officials with R's after their names in the process. The Republican's in the Alaskan legislature are not Palin's friends.
Once the Democrat running the investigation promised to deliver mud for Obama, I see no impropriety in Palin's no longer co-operating with his pet PI. Why should she when even the pretense of impartiality had been discarded?
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
Because that's a distraction. The underlying issue remains: it would be wrong to discipline Wooten again, given that there was no new misconduct. This is true regardless of whether or not one calls it "double jeopardy."
Your point seems to be that Rs can't be trusted to investigate her, and Ds can't be trusted to investigate her. So who gets to investigate her? Only people she declares to be her "friends?" That's quite a system you're implying. Why not just declare her Queen of Alaska, since no one has standing to constrain her acts?
French didn't conduct the investigation and write the report. Branchflower did. And there's nothing illegitimate about what French said. As Judge Michalski said:
And French never "promised to deliver mud for Obama." He simply speculated about the possible results.
Check your timeline. French's famous comment ("October surprise") was reported on 9/2. On 9/1, Palin had already filed a motion to have her Personnel Board take over the investigation. That's a nice skill she has: reading newspapers that haven't been published yet.
She had already made her move, and she jumped on French's remark as a lame alibi.
'This is true regardless of whether or not one calls it "double jeopardy."'
Then why did you do so?
Again, it's not unreasonable to expect you to be precise, when you (apparently) expect that of others on VC.
Because I think the term properly captures the essential issue, at least from the perspective of a layman's understanding of the term, if not also from a technically legal perspective. I didn't realize that it would also lead to such a nice demonstration of how some people are eager to change the subject. That part was a bonus.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.